How do we feel about Microsoft's decision to exclude open source drivers by requiring signatures on everything in XP/Vista? Would we want them to rule out GPLed software based on MFC and.Net? It's no better for Linux to enforce a particular license for drivers or impose license restrictions on KDE/Qt apps. An operating system should be license-neutral for any applications and plugins it supports. A user should not be limited in what kind of hardware he can buy for his Linux computer.
1960s called, they want your head out of your ass as soon as possible;)
many corporations are set uo to run at a loss. Tax shelters, non-profits, charities, philanthopic foundations... these are just some examples.
Have a look at replies to the parent, they address to your rhetoric.
Just as a corporation does not have a legal duty to maximize shareholder profit - another fiction.
As you yourself say later ("If the shareholders agree to it, a corporation can even liquidate itself"), the [capitalist, for-profit] corporation is legally bound to hold its shareholder interests above everything. This means that it has to profit, and profit above a minimum acceptable amount, so that its shareholders can have gains... As a result, a [capitalist, for-profit] corporation is legally bound to profit.
Oh, by the way, in the "free market", if you are a business owner and don't profit enough (read:maximize profit), you close shop...
I am sorry to say that corporations[1] are people... Not only that, but their only duty as "legal persons" is to profit, no matter what. And because they are so powerful (unlike real, individual persons), you are living in Corporate America: America ruled by corporations... Under the current law governing corporations, I think Mr. Verizon's legal claim stands. Go figure...
This is not a question, it's primary school. The answer is already in the question. If the flaw is that of the OS (i.e. "OS flaw"), you have no choice but to put blame on the OS and whoever developed it.
I can't find any source for this accusation but this one, which is written by a pro-whaling organization, in association with Norwegian Whalers' Union. It's not reliable. Do you have any other sources for this, from someone other than polluting capitalists, seal hunters, oil companies, whalers etc?
Which one is it? I know what Apple is (a corporation after profit, just like Microsoft ), so I pretty much know who's telling the truth in this case.
One corporation designed to turn a profit for its employees and investors is saying nasty things about another corporation designed to turn a profit for its employees and investors. Feeling the need to choose, you decide against the one that still has shreds of credibility? If you still believe that Greenpeace is out to save the world and not make money for its directors and the people who advertise through it, then I have a bridge to sell you.
I'd be glad to buy that bridge if it's reasonably priced: have a look at the above discussions regarding Greenpeace not being a capitalist corporation but a non-profit ngo. if you think they're turning profit, that's a pretty serious accusation against such an organization.
But Greenpeace is a 501c4, not a 501c3. They are not inherently doing anything "good" themselves, but rather spend their money fueling their ships for publicity and lobbying.
This argument just doesn't make sense. 501c4's difference is that they're allowed to do lobbying... Greenpeace still operates for the promotion of social welfare, which is "good" by its nature...
If Greenpeace really cared about the environment, they'd dock their fleet.
Among many others, whalers, seal hunters, and oil companies (that use oil platforms) would just love that idea...
In reality, they thrive purely on the controversy they imaginatively create.
But which imaginary controversy do you refer to?
a. Forest depletion and destruction of anything and anyone related to depleted forests,
b. Destruction of ocean life
c. Global warming
d. Toxic wastes
e. Volatility of nuclear waste
f. Degradation of food supplies thru genetic engineering
Wow, they've created so many myths... PS. I guess you're from the US, so I listed those issues that you'd rather think are myths created by Greenpeace in order to... ???
some environmentalist won't be satisfied until every single human being on this planet is extinct.
Okay, I can understand that the parent has an opinion, although conflicting with itself by nature, but WTF were you thinking when you rated this "insightful"? You people are crazy.
The title says "Jobs responds to Greanpeace FUD", which means (in English) that the arguments by Greanpeace are FUD. The summary itself goes on to say that it is Jobs who is arguing that Greanpeace is FUD'ing. But the summary finishes with "Apple is agreeing with Greanpeace demands", which means (in English) that there was no FUD in Greanpeace's claims. If there was, Apple wouldn't do what Greanpeace asked them to do.
So I'd like to ask the submitter to gather around her or his thoughts and decide whether:
1. Greenpeace arguments are FUD, or
2. Jobs thinks Greanpeace arguments are FUD, or
3. Greenpeace is telling the truth (and Apple is indeed using hazardous materials, intentionally harming its workers' health abroad and the environment).
Which one is it? I know what Apple is (a corporation after profit, just like Microsoft), so I pretty much know who's telling the truth in this case.
I don't understand what the parent is trying to say... The only stuff I understood was the "NO CARRIER" part, which kinda fit well to my position of being clueless about the post:)
I'm missing why keeping your data for services you choose to use while knowing the terms you're using them under is considered "evil".
Your argument would be feasible only if "knowing" actually meant "being aware of all the consequences of your action"... Well, if you are powerful enough, you can manufacture consent. Google is.
Just having the data is not evil in itself.
So your data being in the hands of a corporation, whose sole duty is to make profit, doesn't worry you? See, manufacturing consent really works...
Hey theres no day care for the men IT employees either hows that fair?
Day care services for men and women would be nice. But yours is another reverse-discrimination argument that doesn't make sense... Men do not need day care services as much as women because men are not exploited thru sexist / patriarchal stereotypes that force them to look after their children... As a result of persistence stereotypes and cultural roles assigned to women (that function to make it easier to exploit them thru unpaid work), when day care services are not available to employees, women are the ones who are victimized the most, hence gender discrimination...
I think women in that regard are at a real disadvantage,' said Dot Brunette, network and storage manager at Meijer Inc., a Grand Rapids, Mich.-based retailer and a 30-year IT veteran.
What a stupid name. Too bad she didn't get married to Jeff Matrix instead
The fact that parent is #1 post for this news item and rated as "funny", I think women's flight away from IT is not just a result of gender job segregation but also stupid male IT workers (aka sexual harassment)...
Slashdot Mirror
But you still didn't explain why the past is not trying to hold us down via copyrights, patents and so on... You just said that it won't...
The key term you use is: I . "I" != "Everyone else"
In Soviet Russia, papers read you? Na
Oh, by the way, in the "free market", if you are a business owner and don't profit enough (read:maximize profit), you close shop...
Under the current law governing corporations, I think Mr. Verizon's legal claim stands. Go figure...
[1] That documentary is a must see...
%2 of the respondents are women... There certainly is something wrong with the community, if it cannot attract almost any women...
I can't find any source for this accusation but this one, which is written by a pro-whaling organization, in association with Norwegian Whalers' Union. It's not reliable. Do you have any other sources for this, from someone other than polluting capitalists, seal hunters, oil companies, whalers etc?
a. Forest depletion and destruction of anything and anyone related to depleted forests,
b. Destruction of ocean life
c. Global warming
d. Toxic wastes
e. Volatility of nuclear waste
f. Degradation of food supplies thru genetic engineering
Wow, they've created so many myths... ...
PS. I guess you're from the US, so I listed those issues that you'd rather think are myths created by Greenpeace in order to
???
So I'd like to ask the submitter to gather around her or his thoughts and decide whether:
1. Greenpeace arguments are FUD, or
2. Jobs thinks Greanpeace arguments are FUD, or
3. Greenpeace is telling the truth (and Apple is indeed using hazardous materials, intentionally harming its workers' health abroad and the environment).
Which one is it? I know what Apple is (a corporation after profit, just like Microsoft ), so I pretty much know who's telling the truth in this case.
I don't understand what the parent is trying to say... The only stuff I understood was the "NO CARRIER" part, which kinda fit well to my position of being clueless about the post :)
Your argument would be feasible only if "knowing" actually meant "being aware of all the consequences of your action"... Well, if you are powerful enough, you can manufacture consent . Google is.
So your data being in the hands of a corporation, whose sole duty is to make profit, doesn't worry you? See, manufacturing consent really works...
Don't worry, you are not alone.